Suchergebnisse

"Can international institutions help create more cooperative and peaceful relations between states? If so, how? And what motivates states to create meaningful institutions in the first place? Though theorists and researchers have approached these questions from different schools of thought, the commonality among them is that institutions are apolitical and their purpose is to assure common gains or develop shared social norms and identities. Institutions succeed if they rise above petty power politics and fail when they succumb to political confrontations. In this book, Erik Voeten offers a new broader understanding of international institutions. Current theories offer conflicting portraits of why IOs form, why the succeed (or not) and their role in current politics. While international institutions can enhance the welfare of participants, they are simultaneously the structural means through which actors try to get what they want, often at the expense of others. Voeten argues that these distributive politics shape institutions and, in turn, institutions shape the conduct of such politics. The book will largely be theoretical, as its purpose is to illustrate an alternative way of understanding institutions rather than to test a specific hypothesis. After developing what the distributive theory of international institutions is, Voeten examines how this theory bears on other understandings of international institutions on a variety of scholarly perspectives, drawing on the extensive work in this area"--

Abstract
Over the last decade, scholars have debated whether the shifting landscape of individual rights protection in Europe has influenced the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In our article, 'Walking Back Human Rights in Europe?', we analysed every minority opinion of the ECtHR Grand Chamber between 1998 and 2018. We found a substantial increase in what we labelled as 'walking back dissents' – minority opinions asserting that the Grand Chamber has overturned prior case law or settled doctrine in a way that favours the government. In their Reply, Stone Sweet, Sandholtz and Andenas (SSA) offer two principal critiques. First, they assert that they could not 'replicate' our coding. Second, SSA challenge our claim that legal and political developments in Europe have incentivized the ECtHR to move in a rights-restrictive direction. These claims are inaccurate and mischaracterize our article. First, SSA do not 'replicate' our study. Instead, they code a very small subset of judgments using more restrictive, subjective and vague criteria – which, unsurprisingly, yield fewer walking back dissents. Second, SSA narrowly focus on the Brighton and Copenhagen conferences, ignoring numerous other changes at the national and regional level that have created a more constrained environment for the ECtHR.

Is the public backlash against human rights rulings from European courts driven by substantive concerns over case outcomes, procedural concerns over sovereignty, or combinations thereof? We conducted preregistered survey experiments in Denmark, France, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom using three vignettes: a foreigner who faces extradition, a person fighting a fine for burning Qurans, and a home owner contesting eviction. Each vignette varies with respect to whether a European court disagrees with a national court (deference treatment) and whether an applicant wins a case (outcome treatment). We find little evidence that deference moves willingness to implement judgments or acceptance of court authority but ample evidence that case outcomes matter. Even nationalists and authoritarians are unmoved by European court decisions as long as they agree with the case outcome. These findings imply that nationalist opposition to European courts is more about content than the location of authority and that backlash to domestic and international courts may be driven by similar forces.